Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Nebraska's Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) dismissing a complaint brought by a bargaining agent against a public employer for prohibited labor practices, holding that the public employer did not commit any of the prohibited practices alleged in the complaint.Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 31 (FOP), the exclusive collective bargaining agent for a bargaining unit consisting of members of the York Police Department, brought this action against the City of York as the political subdivision that employed FOP's bargaining unit. FOP alleged that, in relation to a residency requirement for a promotion, the Department engaged in prohibited labor practices. The CIR dismissed the petition and refused to award attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department did not commit any of the alleged prohibited labor practices. View "Fraternal Order of Police v. City of York" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the district court finding that the City of Bellevue lacked authority to adopt an ordinance to annex Landowners' land, holding that the district court erred by finding that the annexation was invalid for the reasons it identified.Landowners filed separate complaints asserting that the City had exceeded its authority and powers granted to a city of the first class by Neb. Rev. Stat. 16-130 because the subject land was not adjacent to or contiguous with the existing City limits and was agricultural and rural in character. The two actions were consolidated, and the district court found in favor of Landowners. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by finding that Landowners' properties were rural in character and were neither contiguous nor adjacent to the City. View "Darling Ingredients Inc. v. City of Bellevue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment for the County of Sarpy and declaring two annexation ordinances and a zoning extension ordinance adopted by the City of Gretna invalid, holding that the ordinances were valid.In seeking to have the ordinances adopted by Gretna declared invalid, Sarpy County argued that Gretna exceeded its annexation authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. 17-407(2) because the annexed area included twenty-two parcels with agricultural land that was rural in character. The district court granted summary judgment for Sarpy County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the annexed area was urban, rather than rural, in character, and the ordinances were a lawful exercise of Gretna's annexation powers. View "County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Kathryn Tierney's post-divorce motion to determine a metes and bounds description for the parties' marital home and awarding Kathryn a 5.24-acre parcel created from the original parcels of land, holding that the district court did not err.The decree dissolving the marriage of Kathryn and Lawrence Tierney also divided the martial property, including certain tracts of real property. The court of appeals modified the decree in part by awarding Lawrence certain parcels originally awarded to Kathryn and awarding the martial home to Kathryn. Because the home was located on one of the tracts of land that had been awarded to Lawrence Kathryn motioned for a metes and bounds description for the home. Kathryn sought a minimum parcel of 5.24 acres, and Lawrence argued for a one-acre tract. The district court granted Kathryn's motion and awarded her a 5.24-acre tract of land. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Lawrence's assignments of error. View "Tierney v. Tierney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge for a violation of his statutory speedy trial rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207, holding that the district court properly found that Defendant's statutory speedy trial rights had not been violated.The State charged Defendant by an information with one count of possession of methamphetamine, a felony. Defendant later filed his motion for absolute discharge pursuant to the speedy trial statute. After a hearing, the district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to bring Defendant to trial with its six-month statutory deadline and that the evidence did not prove or permit a reasonable inference of delay resulting from either "absence or unavailability" or "other proceedings." View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in connection with the death of his girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Defendnat later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that both his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The postconviction court denied relief without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations in Defendant's postconviction motion did not warrant an evidentiary hearing and that Defendant was not entitled to relief. View "State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing and vacating an award of penalties and attorney fees, holding that, for reasoning different from the court of appeals, the court of appeals did not err when it reversed the award of penalties and attorney fees.Martin Boring filed a petition against Zoetis LLC in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) claiming a compensable injury arising from his employment with Zoetis. The WCC awarded Boring temporary and permanent benefits and ordered Zoetis to pay Boring penalties and attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125. The court of appeals affirmed the benefits award but vacated the award of penalties and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC erred when it found that there was no reasonable controversy based solely on its reliance on the judicial admission in Zoetis' answer. View "Boring v. Zoetis LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the district court dissolving the marriage of the parties in this case, Tyron Alli and Patricia Seivert, and dividing the marital estate, holding that neither party was entitled to relief on their claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err by (1) including in the marital estate property that Alli obtained after the parties separated and the complaint for dissolution was filed; (2) ordering Alli to pay alimony; (3) ordering Alli to pay attorney fees; (4) ordering Alli to pay the children's educational expenses; (5) determining the value of Alli's business interests; and (6) failing to find that the parties were putatively married in June 1996. View "Seivert v. Alli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of a contractor (Contractor) against the homeowners' association (HOA) that hired it to perform repair work, holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in (1) finding that the HOA had waived, by one of the methods described in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1126, its right to a jury trial and in refusing to allow the HOA to withdraw its waiver; (2) concluding that the HOA had to present expert testimony to support its defense and counterclaims asserting that the repair work was done in an unworkmanlike manner; (3) excluding lay testimony of other contractors, in finding the HOA's expert witness lacked foundation for his opinions, and in excluding testimony relating to what the court found to be compromise negotiations; and (4) awarding prejudgment interest and attorney fees. View "McGill Restoration v. Lion Place Condominium Association" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court excluding the expert opinion testimony of a licensed chiropractor in Nebraska that his patient sustained a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle collision, holding that the court did not err in excluding the testimony.Plaintiff sued Defendant, who struck Plaintiff's vehicle from behind with his vehicle, alleging that Defendant's negligence resulted in Plaintiff's sustaining serious injuries. The defense in limine moved to preclude Dr. John McClaren, a licensed chiropractor, from giving any opinion testimony regarding his diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury. The trial court sustained the motion in limine, concluding that McLaren was not qualified to testify about the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Plaintiff for $5,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McClaren's testimony regarding the diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury was correctly excluded because it fell outside the scope of chiropractic practice in Nebraska. View "Yagodinski v. Sutton" on Justia Law